[OT] No-Archive headers (Was: Re: A question regarding built-in resources)
- From: "Michael B. Trausch" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:27:32 -0500
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:22:40 -0800
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does the no-archive header bother you?I can't speak for Ignacio, but it bothers me. Your answer that
"anything worthwhile will get propagated into a thread" is deficient,
in that it assumes that you are the only person using no-archive. In
general, any behavior that is defended with "I'm the only one doing
it, so it's okay" automatically implies that if everyone were doing
it, it wouldn't be okay. And any behavior that wouldn't be okay if
everyone would do it should not be done by anyone. It's the classic
"overfishing the pond" dilemma.
It was one answer among several. I don't have to assume I'm the only
person using No-Archive for that to remain valid, anyway. There will
always be a substantial number of people on Usenet who do not use the
No-Archive header. Further, even if that weren't the case, the
Internet is a decent amount larger than that. Good things on the
Internet make it across multiple segments of the Internet, carrying
over into the Web, or sent in email messages. This is how it has been
for as long as the Internet has existed---way before there were ever
archives of anything.
More generally, you cannot at all rely on your own text being quoted
to provide context in archives. Not everyone quotes a post, or the
code, or both. Unless you have a VERY good reason for your own post
to not be archived, you should not be setting the no-archive field.
Even when it is set, it should be on a case-by-case basis, and this
should be a rare event.
You cannot easily set arbitrary headers in many MUAs, and in some MUAs
you can't set arbitrary headers at all. If a person wants their posts
to be not archived, I don't see a problem with that. There are many
reasons---many of which would really be none of anyone's
business---that one might want to use the headers to request (keep in
mind that's all it is, a _request_) not archiving the post.
There is nothing that says that the request has to be honored. I know
of at least a small handful of Web sites that refuse to honor the
request. Now, while someone else might have a problem with that, I
don't. The information is still out there. There is just no need for
it to be pointlessly duplicated in more than a few places. In fact,
the only service I know of that actually honors it is Google Groups,
which is fine by me. GG is today's extension of the eternal September,
and I've probably seen _one_ meaningful post come from there.
For you to not allow your own posts to be included in the archive is
to say to the entire community "I want to take advantage of this
discussion, but I do not want my own contributions to be available",
which is a very selfish approach. Even if you intend to be selfish,
you can't expect others to think kindly of that, and if you didn't
intend to be selfish you should be _especially_ wary of acting that
way.
I don't prohibit my posts from being including in any archive. (Do
note that there isn't a "the" here; there are _many_ archives of
various segments of Usenet all over the place, some of them with really
nasty "forum" frontends.) If I wanted to do that, I would place each
of my messages under a restrictive copyright license permitting use
only under certain circumstances and for certain durations of time. It
is unfortunate that you feel that I am making a statement that I am
not; setting X-No-Archive, for starters, is nonauthoritative, and says
_nothing_. It doesn't say "I want to take advantage of this
discussion, but I do not want my own contributions to be available," as
you put it; it says "I desire not having my posts archived by default,"
without alluding as to why. Anything beyond that is assumed---it's
speculation.
Is setting X-No-Archive a selfish act? I don't believe so. It's
really no more selfish than setting a header "X-No-Print" or
"X-Redistribution-Prohibited" or "X-Content-License" or "X-Vote-Obama"
or anything else you could think of to add to the headers you transmit
in your messages. I don't see it as any more selfish than obscuring
one's email address in Usenet headers. I _might_ care if someone were
going around attaching kilobytes of extra headers that made it a PITA
to actually *use* a newsreader.
FYI, if you've an actual honest-to-goodness problem with the
X-No-Archive header, you may want to use a service like Motzarella. My
XNA-posted messages are still available there. I should think that any
sane Usenet server accessed over NNTP would act in the same fashion.
In any event, if it really is such an issue, I will disable it. It
should take effect with either this or the next post I make. Feel free
to let me know privately if you continue to notice new posts after this
from me which still have them set, but that shouldn't happen.
--- Mike
--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/
.
- References:
- Re: A question regarding built-in resources
- From: Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP )
- Re: A question regarding built-in resources
- From: Peter Duniho
- Re: A question regarding built-in resources
- Prev by Date: Re: camelCase
- Next by Date: Re: camelCase
- Previous by thread: Re: A question regarding built-in resources
- Next by thread: Re: A question regarding built-in resources
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
